Daniel Zylstra

Here's a link to the article about how many planets there may be out there: 8.8 billion habitable Earth-size planets

Joy,

I'm afraid your comments may not be very helpful. Your language here seems to be more inflamatory than conciliatory. There is certainly no excuse for mobs of racially motivated people "knocking out" people of other races. However, neither is there any excuse for language which over generalizes, and makes even more racially polarizing remarks to boot.

If you truly want to address the issue and have something done about it, then maybe we should be asking questions like:

Why is this happening at all? If we were a truly non-racist society, wouldn't this kind of behaviour be utterly ludicrous? How can we "love our enemies" here, as Jesus asked us to do? How can we support the victims (those attacked) by these mobs? How can we seek to bring the true, reconciling justice of Christ to all parties concerned in such happenings?

Those are the kinds of questions we need to be asking. Not inflammatory questions regarding "where the media outrage is" or "imagin[ing] what it would be like if whites attacked blacks like this" None of those questions is helpful, I'm afraid, except insofar as they reflect your feelings of upset: feelings which are natural and understandable. It IS upsetting when ANY people attack ANY other people--especially when it's racially motivated. But let's seek to make it better, not worse.

John,

You have such an interesting idea of what "core" doctrines are. A core doctrine is our belief in the Trinity. A core doctrine is our belief in Jesus as the only way to salvation. A core doctrine is our acknowledgment that God is sovereign Lord over all things, and that Christ will return as triumphant King of Kings. A core doctrine is THAT God created all things. The mechanics of how God created the world (as opposed to the question of whether He created the world or not) is NOT a core doctrine. You conflate these things. THAT God created the world is not equal to HOW God created the world.

Brian,

I agree with the other posters so far. The only caution I have is that sometimes, when we get ornery, dig in our heals and push back at the congregation, saying things like, "They need to realise that they're the ones with the problem" we could well be heading into (if not already in the thick of) sin in our own lives. I think it IS important for us to have a healthy (but not guilt-ridden) self-examination when congregations raise these issues and ask ourselves some of the following questions:

<ol>

<li>Why do I preach as long as I do? Could I say the same thing in a shorter way, would it honour God to do so? Does it honour God that I speak as long as I do? Do I hamper the delivery of the Word of God by speaking for 30 min. (I have a preaching friend colleague who thinks that no on should preach longer than 18min.)</li>

<li>Why do we introduce new songs? How often do we introduce them? Are we introducing them just to be "attractive" to people from outside our church? Or are we introducing new songs to bring new life and perspective, etc.?</li>

</ol>

If we ask ourselves these kinds of questions and others in a healthy, not beating yourself up kind of way, then the angst that others express to us about "things they don't like" can actually lead us into deeper and better servant-leadership of the church. 

That doesn't mean that we have to approach the people who've made these accusations from the Matt. 18 perspective, as if we had sinned (unless upon self-examination we've found that we HAVE sinned). In fact, quite often if I personally examine myself and find sin relating to this kind of thing, it is quite often not the same kind of sin that I have been "accused" of committing. Certainly preaching "too long" or having "too many" new songs are not sins in and of themselves, per-se. But the motivations behind doing these things can be just as sinful as the motivations of those who cry "too many", "too much" or "I don't like it!" in the first place.

My advice is this: Humbly receive the criticism, saying thank you for talking to you, then share with them the purpose for the changes, and how this isn't about like or dislike but it's about ______________ (fill in the blank).

I would also recommend that, if your church hasn't done so already, you work with the Council to come up with a statement about what you believe worship to be, why you do what you do (or don't do what you don't do) and what kind of feedback is acceptable and/or unacceptable from the congregation.

We've done that in terms of worship. We've created a document (with the significant help of a sister church's previous work) relaying what worship is, what it looks like in our context and what we expect from the congregation in response to that. It doesn't get rid of all the complaining, but at least people have something to examine and "measure" a worship service against and measure themselves against too.

More long winded than I intended. Hopefully it was helpful nonetheless.

in His service,

Dan

I'd like to propose a slightly different approach to the matter for a couple of reasons here:

• First, we need to remember that the tithe was, in biblical times, given to the local "church", and that part of Israel's infrastructure as a theocracy was that the church would provide for the education of the children to some degree. Thus, when children went to school, that schooling was "paid for" by the tithe (at least in part).
• Second, and I'm sure you all know this so I don't really need to say it again, but the tithe was only one portion of the giving that Israelites were expected to do. They had all kinds of other offerings that they were to give. So the whole terminology of the tithe is, in old testament terms, somewhat misleading.
• Third, Old Testament tithes and offerings were not just financial, of course, people gave of what they produced--mostly crops because Israel was an agricultural society.
• Fourth, Jesus really seems to up the ante with giving in the New Testament--beyond Old Testament tithing and beyond all the other offerings too. Remember, of course, how Jesus interacts with the disciples about the old woman giving at the temple and the rich young ruler, and the parable of Lazarus and the rich man.
• Fifth, add in the good Kuiperyian (sp?) reminder of the biblical truth of Jesus' sovereignty over all things and you're led (IMHO) to the following conclusions...(and I raise them partly to see what people's responses will be)

1. We should be teach (and practice) that none of the money or resources that we have are ours--all of it belongs to God.
2. We should teach (and practice) that Jesus doesn't give hard and fast rules about how much people should give, rather he teaches that more is better--more giving is better (as a general rule and as long as the motivations are right).
3. We should teach that strictly giving financially to the church is not an option either--that the Bible teaches that giving of whatever you produce is the rule--not just the money you get. Giving back to God what is His in terms of talents and time are part of a proper picture of giving.
4. And we should teach that if people need a guideline to start with then they should wrestle with God over the idea of giving 10% back to him, but that that is only the beginning of their journey of stewardship.

In other words, I don't think we should make the issue too easy for people. We should challenge ourselves to wrestle with God on this one--What does God want me to give at this time, and in this place? Jesus doesn't make these issues easy for anyone, but instead constantly challenged people to be more faithful, and more giving and more loving.

What do you think, folks?

Dan.

<p>

<p>Thanks for all the replies everyone!

<p>

<p>@ Bruce: I hear what you're saying about our particular flavour and aroma, and I would agree with you that, on an inter-denominational level we are definitely acquiring that kind of good aroma. I think that we're not all the way there yet, but things like the Reformed/Catholic dialogue on the sacraments and the revision proces for Q&A 80 in the Heidelberg Catechism bode very well for our future in that regard.

<p>

<p>My questions have more to do with how we treat fellow believers from other traditions who come to worship with us. In this day and age when we are encouraged by the denomination (and rightly so) to start "counting to one", and when more and more people search out congregations based more on things like what sort of mission activities the church participates in, etc., and less and less on the nuances of doctrine (I'm not talking about the big stuff--people still care about that), then how should we respond to these "new" people in our midst?

<p>

<p>Is it really right for us to say: "You cannot be a member of our congregation because you don't believe in infant baptism."? Or, "You can't be an elder in the church because you believe in the possibility of a second blessing."? What if these people hold these convictions genuinely, but are willing to submit to the teaching of the church and not to "promote" or "indoctrinate" others with their beliefs within the community, but are willing to present fairly what the church believes instead? 

<p>

<p>For ministers there is room for a "gravamen" or some such thing (which is a whole 'nother discussion), but what about for people who would normally be perfectly suitable for serving as elder or deacon or Sunday school teacher? Where's the room for them?

<p>

<p>@Bev: Thanks for your encouragement. Let me encourage you. I don't know where you're from, but here in Ontario there are many people who wrestle with these types of questions. My congregation is not the only one. Many ministers and church leaders wrestle with this type of question on a very frequent basis. Some congregations that I'm aware of seem to have abandoned any sense of a reformed identity and have basically "masked" themselves as non-denominational, community churches. Other congregations have taken a "harder" line and have not allowed people in membership or in leadership depending on their beliefs about relatively non-central things. And many other churches fall somewhere in-between. Ours falls currently somewhere in-between, in that we allow membership, but we don't allow certain leadership roles for people who believe differently than us in terms of (for example) infant vs. believer's baptism.

<p>

<p>As far as our "fear of the Holy Spirit" goes, I can understand where you're coming from, and there are some folks in our congregation who feel the same way as you. I also understand the historical and theological context for others' "fear", as you put it. Again, this is an issue where there's legitimate room to say (IMHO) that there is not an ABSOLUTELY clear answer to some of these questions. We've wrestled with it as a denomination, and our "official" doctrine has come a long way (I'd encourage you to read the study reports on "3rd wave pentecostalism", if you haven't already). The practical living out of that doctrine is a different story for many of our congregants. But in the meantime, how can we create room for each other--for those who are essentially "cessationists" and for those who are essentially "3rd Wave Pentecostals"?

<p>

<p>@Peter: Thank you too for your comments! I would agree with what you've said on so many fronts. I do think that sexual orientation is a significant part of this discussion as well. We have people (as do we all) who are homosexual and/or who struggle with what a proper biblical understanding of this issue is. In the past the church (as a whole) has had a pretty lamentable history of dealing with sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. Still today there is not really a general recognition among Christians that sexual orientation is perhaps not quite as clearly black and white as maybe we once thought it was, and that there's a possibility that, no matter what viewpoint we have we might possibly be wrong...and that perhaps we ought to make room for each other in this too.

<p>

<p>I guess I'm suggesting that there must be a different way altogether:

<p>

<p>1.) Teach people what we (as Reformed Christians) believe.

<p>

<p>2.) Acknowledge to our own people (in addition to other denominations) that we don't believe that we have an absolute corner on the truth, but that this is the best we've been able to understand His revelation so far.

<p>

<p>3.) Allow for membership and leadership, provided the potential members/leaders acknowledge humbly that they too do not have an absolute corner on the truth and that they will not undermine the teachings of the church by proseletyzing others, etc.

<p>

<p>Blessings, everyone. Thanks for contributing your thought. I appreciate them as I explore and seek to follow Him.

<p>

<p>in His service,

<p>

<p>Dan.